Sequence Stratigraphyncb/Selected_Articles_all_files/08... · and the emergence of sequence stratigraphy does not imply that existing tech- ... stratigraphy represents more than a

Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 1995. 23:451-78Copyright (~ 1995 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved

SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY

Nicholas Christie-Blick and Neal W. Driscoll

Department of Geological Sciences and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatoryof Columbia University, Palisades, New York 10964-8000

KEY WORDS: sedimentation, unconformity, tectonics, seismic stratigraphy, sea level

INTRODUCTION

Sequence stratigraphy is the study of sediments and sedimentary rocks in termsof repetitively arranged facies and associated stratal geometry (Vail 1987; VanWagoner et al 1988, 1990; Christie-Blick 1991). It is a technique that can betraced back to the work of Sloss et al (1949), Sloss (1950, 1963), and Wheeler(1958) on interregional unconformities of the North American craton, but it be-came systematized only after the advent of seismic stratigraphy, the stratigraphicinterpretation of seismic reflection profiles (Vail et al 1977, 1984, 1991; Berg& Woolverton 1985; Cross & Lessenger 1988; Sloss 1988; Christie-Blick et al1990; Van Wagoner et al 1990; Vail 1992). Sequence stratigraphy makes use ofthe fact that sedimentary successions are pervaded by physical discontinuities.These are present at a great range of scales and they arise in a number of quitedifferent ways: for example, by fluvial incision and subaerial erosion (above sealevel); submergence of nonmarine or shallow-marine sediments during trans-gression (flooding surfaces and drowning unconformities), in some cases withshoreface erosion (ravinement); shoreface erosion during regression; erosionin the marine environment as a result of storms, currents, or mass-wasting; andthrough condensation under conditions of diminished sediment supply (inter-vals of sediment starvation). The main attribute shared by virtually all of thesediscontinuities, independent of origin and scale, is that to a first approximationthey separate older deposits from younger ones. The recognition of discon-tinuities is therefore useful because they allow sedimentary successions to bedivided into geometrical units that have time-stratigraphic and hence geneticsignificance.

Precise correlation has of course long been a goal in sedimentary geology,and the emergence of sequence stratigraphy does not imply that existing tech-niques or data ought to be discarded. Instead, sequence stratigraphy provides a

4510084-6597/95/0515-0451 $05.00

www.annualreviews.org/aronlineAnnual Reviews

Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

http://www.annualreviews.org/aronline

452 CHRISTIE-BLICK & DRISCOLL

unifying framework in which observations of intrinsic properties such as lithol-ogy, fossil content, chemistry, magnetic remanence, and age can be compared,correlated, and perhaps reevaluated. With the possible exception of sedimen-tar), units characterized by tabular layering over large areas and by the absenceof significant facies variation (for example, some deep-oceanic sediments), is hard to imagine attempting to interpret the stratigraphic record in any othercontext. We make this point because criticisms leveled at sequence stratigraphyhave tended to lose sight of the essence of the technique.

In this regard, it is unfortunate that the development of sequence stratig-raphy has coincided with the reemergence of the notion that in marine andmarginal marine deposits sedimentary cyclicity is due primarily to eustaticchange (Vail et al 1977; Haq et al 1987, 1988; Posamentier et al 1988; Sarg1988; Dott 1992). Eustasy (global sea-level change) may in fact have modulatedsedimentation during much of earth history but, as a practical technique and inspite of terminology currently in use, sequence stratigraphy does not actuallyrequire any assumptions about eustasy (Christie-Blick 1991). Indeed, one of theprincipal frontiers of this discipline today is the attempt to understand patternsof sediment transport and accumulation as a dynamic phenomenon governedby a great many interrelated factors.

In most cases, specific attributes of sedimentary successions (for example, thelateral extent and thickness of a sedimentary unit, the distribution of includedfacies, or the existence of a particular stratigraphic discontinuity) cannot be as-cribed confidently to a single cause. In particular, the roles of"tectonic events,"eustatic change, and variations in the supply of sediment can be partitionedonly with difficulty (Officer & Drake 1985, Schlanger 1986, Burton et al 1987,Cloetingh 1988, Kendall & Lerche 1988, Galloway 1989, Cathles & Hallam1991, Christie-Blick 1991, Reynolds et al 1991, Sloss 1991, Underhill 1991,Kendall et al 1992, Karner et al 1993, Steckler et al 1993, Driscoll et al 1995).Each of these factors operates at a broad range of time scales (cf Vail et al1991), and none is truly independent owing to numerous feedbacks. For ex-ample, the accumulation of sediment produces a load, which in many casessignificantly modifies the tectonic component of subsidence (Reynolds et al1991, Steckler et al 1993, Driscoll & Karner 1994). The space available forsediment to accumulate is therefore not simply a function of some poorly definedcombination of subsidence and eustasy (the now-popular concept of "relativesea-level change") because that space is influenced by the amount of sedimentthat actually accumulates.

As a result of feedbacks, there are also inherent leads and lags in the sed-imentary system; these influence the timing of the sedimentary response toany particular driving signal in ways that are difficult to predict quantitatively(Jordan & Flemings 1991, Reynolds et al 1991, Steckler et al 1993). Thisphenomenon is particularly significant for efforts to sort out the role of eustasy


Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY 453

(e.g. Christie-Bliek 1990, Christie-Blick et a11990, Watkins & Mountain 1990,Loutit 1992). If the phase relation between the eustatic signal and the resultingstratigraphic record varies from one place to another, then the synchrony orlack thereof of observed stratigraphic events may prove to be less useful thanpreviously thought as a criterion for distinguishing eustasy from other controlson sedimentation. At the very least, the.comparison of sites needs to take intoaccount the other important variables.

Recognition of these inherent difficulties has led to a gradual shift in researchobjectives away from such goals as deriving a "sea-level curve," and towardstudies designed to investigate the effects of specific factors ki~own to havebeen important in governing sedimentation in a particular sedimentary basinor at a particular time in earth history. Among the most important factors arethe rates and amplitudes of eustatic change, subsidence patterns in tectonicallyactive and inactive basins, sediment flux or availability, the physiography ofthe depositional surface (for example, ramps vs settings with a well-developedshelf-slope break), and scale. The subdiscipline of high-resolution sequencestratigraphy has emerged in the course of this research partly in response tothe need for detailed reservoir stratigraphy in mature petroleum provinces andpartly because many of the interesting issues need to be addressed at an outcropor borehole scale (meters to tens of meters) rather than at the scale of a con-ventional seismic reflection profile (Plint 1988, 1991; Van Wagoner et al 1990,1991; Jacquin et al 1991; Leckie et al 1991; Mitchum & Van Wagoner 1991;Posamentier et al 1992a; Flint & Bryant 1993; Garcia-Mond6jar & Fern~indez-Mendiola 1993; Johnson 1994; Posamentier & Mutti 1994). Another frontierin sequence stratigraphy is the application of sequence stratigraphic principlesto the study of pre-Mesozoic successions (e.g. Sarg & Lehmann 1986; Lind-say 1987; Christie-Blick et al 1988, 1995; Grotzinger et al 1989; Sarg 1989;Ebdon et al 1990; Kerans & Nance 1991; Levy & Christie-Blick 1991; Winter& Brink 1991; Bowring & Grotzinger 1992; Holmes & Christie-Blick 1993;Lindsay et al 1993; Sonnenfeld & Cross 1993; Southgate et al 1993; Yang &Nio 1993). In spite of its roots in Paleozoic geology (Sloss et a11949), sequencestratigraphy has been undertaken primarily in Mesozoic and Cenozoic depositsowing to the greater economic significance, more complete preservation, andamenability to precise dating of sediments and sedimentary rocks of these eras.However, applications to older successions within the past decade have providedimportant new perspectives about the development of individual sedimentarybasins, as well as data relevant to many of the issues outlined above.

Standard concepts and the basic methodology of sequence stratigraphy aredescribed in numerous articles, especially those by Haq et al (1987), Vail (1987),Baum & Vail (1988), Loutit et al (1988), Van Wagoner et al (1988, 1990),Posamentier et al (1988), Sarg (1988), Haq (1991), and Vail et ai (1991). this review, we have chosen to emphasize areas of disagreement or controversy,


Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



especially with respect to the origin of stratigraphic discontinuities, which wethink is one of the most interesting general issues in sedimentary geology.

CHOICE OF A FRAMEWORK FORSEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY

The objective of sequence stratigraphy is to determine layer by layer how sedi-mentary successions are put together, from the smallest elements to the largest.We are thus interested in all of the physical surfaces that at different scalesseparate one depositional element from another, and it could be argued thatdisagreements about how elements are defined and combined are secondaryto the overall task at hand. Indeed, different perceptions are in part a prod-uct of real differences that have emerged in the study of contrasting examples.However, it is clear that stratigraphy represents more than a series of randomevents. In many cases there exists a definite hierarchy in layering patterns. Inchoosing a framework for sequence stratigraphy, it is therefore important toselect elements that are as far as possible genetically coherent and not merelyutilitarian. Currently, at least three schemes are being used (Figure 1). Herewe briefly make the case for the form of sequence stratigraphy that emergedfrom Exxon in the 1970s and 1980s (Vail et al 1977, 1984; Vail 1987; Sarg1988; Van Wagoner et al 1988, 1990), in preference to "genetic stratigraphy"(Galloway 1989) and "allostratigraphy" (NACSN 1983, Salvador 1987, Walker1990, Blum 1993, Mutti et al 1994).

Sequence stratigraphy and genetic stratigraphy differ primarily in the way thatfundamental depositional units are defined (Figure 1). In the case of sequencestratigraphy, the depositional sequence is defined as a relatively conformablesuccession of genetically related strata bounded by unconformities and theircorrelative conformities (Mitchum 1977, Van Wagoner et al 1990, Christie-Blick 1991). In the most general sense, an unconformity is a buried surface oferosion or nondeposition. In the context of sequence stratigraphy, it has beenrestricted to those surfaces that are related (or are inferred to be related) at leastlocally to the lowering of depositional base level and hence to subaerial erosionor bypassing (Vail et al 1984, Van Wagoner et al 1988). According to this def-inition, intervals bounded by marine erosion surfaces that do not pass laterallyinto subaerial discontinuities are not sequences. The fundamental unit of ge-netic stratigraphy, the genetic stratigraphic sequence, is bounded by intervalsof sediment starvation (Galloway 1989). These correspond approximately withtimes of maximum flooding and their significance is therefore quite differentfrom that of subaerial erosion surfaces.

Both kinds of sequence are recognizable in seismic reflection and boreholedata. The principal argument for adopting the genetic stratigraphic approach isutilitarian: Intervals of sediment starvation are laterally persistent and paleonto-logically useful. However, the boundaries of genetic stratigraphic sequences are


Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



A Genetic Stratigraphlc SequenceSet

EXPLANATION

Fluvial and Coastal Plain

Shoreface and Deltaic

Shelf and Slope

Submarine "Fan"

Bas(nward Limit ofAIIoetratlgraphic Unit Composite Interval of

Sediment Starvation

B

Depositional Sequence Boundary

X

Genetic Stratigraphic¯ Sequence Bounclery

Depositional Sequence Boundary

Subaerial Hiatus ~

DISTANCE

Figure 1 Conceptual cross sections in relation to depth (A) and geological time (B) showing

stratal geometry, the distribution of siliciclastic facies, and competing schemes for stratigraphicsubdivision in a basin with a shelf-slope break (from NACSN 1983, Galloway 1999, Vail 1987,

Christie-Blick 199l, Vail et al 1991). Boundaries of depositional sequences are associated at

least in places with subaerial hiatuses, and they are the primary stratigraphie disec~atinuities in asuccession. Boundaries of genetic strafigraphic sequences are located within intervals of sediment

starvation, and they tend to onlap depositional sequence boundaries toward the basin margin (pointX). Allostratigraphic units are defined and identified on the basis of bounding discontinuities.Allostratigraphic nomenclature is not strictly applicable where a bou~tiing unconformity passeslaterally into a conformity or where objective evidence for a stratigraphic discontinuity is lacking

(basinward of points labeled Y ).

located somewhat arbitrarily within more-or-less continuous successions. Insome cases, no distinctive surfaces are present. In others, intervals of starvationmay contain numerous marine disconformities or hardgrounds (lithified crusts,commordy composed of caxbonate). Objective identification of the maximumflooding surface is usually difficult, and so genetic stratigraphy is especiallylimited in high-resolution subsurface and outcrop studies. Undue focus on in-tervals of starvation also makes it possible to ignore the presence of prominentunconformities and to conclude (perhaps incorrectly) that sedimentary cyclicityis due primarily to variations in sediment supply (Galloway 1989), when thevery existence of subaerial unconformities probably requires some additionalmechanism (Christie-Blick 1991). The sequence stratigraphic approach can


Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



also be problematic: The boundaries of depositional sequences tend to be ofvariable character, subject to modification during transgression, and difficult torecognize once they pass laterally into fully marine successions. Yet sequencestratigraphy is preferable to genetic stratigraphy because in many settings se-quence boundaries related to subaerial erosion are the primary stratigraphicdiscontinuities and therefore the key to stratigraphic interpretation (Figure 1B;Posamentier & James 1993).

Allostratigraphy differs from sequence stratigraphy and genetic stratigraphyby taking a more descriptive approach to physical stratigraphy (NACSN 1983,Salvador 1987, Walker 1990, Blum 1993, Mutti et al 1994). As formalizedin the North American Stratigraphic Code, allostratigraphic units are definedand identified on the basis of bounding discontinuities; in this respect they arefundamentally similar to those of sequence stratigraphy (Figure 1). Differentterminology is justified by Walker (1990) on at least two counts. Sequencestratigraphic concepts are regarded as imprecise, especially with respect toscale and the meaning of such expressions as "relatively conformable" and"genetically related." It is also argued that sequence stratigraphy is not univer-sally applicable--for example, in unifacial or nonmarine successions or whereuncertainty exists about the origin of a particular surface. Allostratigraphicnomenclature is, however, rejected here for several reasons, including historicalpriority. The designations of "alloformations," "allomembers," etc are unnec-essary and overly formalistic; and these terms are not strictly applicable where abounding unconformity passes laterally into a conformity (Baum & Vail 1988)or where objective evidence for a discontinuity is lacking (basinward of pointslabeled Y in Figure 1). As with sequence stratigraphy, allostratigraphy involvesmaking judgments about the relative importance of discontinuities (and hencethe degree of conformability or genetic relatedness), but it does not require anattempt to distinguish surfaces of different origin. Nor does this nongenetic ter-minology help much where sequence stratigraphic interpretation is admittedlydifficult (for example, in deposits lacking laterally traceable discontinuities).

DEPARTURES FROM THE STANDARD MODEL

In the standard model for sequence stratigraphy (Figure 2), unconformity-bounded sequences are composed of"parasequences" and "parasequence sets,"which are stratigraphic units characterized by overall upward-shoaling of de-positional facies and bounded by marine flooding surfaces and their correlativesurfaces (Vail 1987; Van Wagoner et al 1988, 1990). These depositional ele-ments are themselves assembled into "systems tracts" (Brown & Fisher 1977)according to position within a sequence and the manner in which parasequencesor parasequence sets are arranged or stacked (Posamentier et al 1988, VanWagoner et al 1988). Bounding unconformities are classified as type 1 or type2 according to such criteria as the presence or absence of incised valleys, the


Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



prominence of associated facies discontinuities, and whether or not lowstanddeposits (LST in Figure 2) are present in the adjacent basin. This particular viewof stratigraphy is best suited to the study of siliciclastic sedimentation at a dif-ferentially subsiding passive continental margin with a well-defined shelf-slopebreak, and under conditions of fluctuating sea level. As with any sedimentarymodel, it represents a distillation of case studies and inductive reasoning, andmodifications are therefore needed for individual examples, for other deposi-tional settings, and as concepts evolve (Posamentier & James 1993).

Parasequences

Upward-shoaling successions bounded by flooding surfaces (parasequences)are best developed in nearshore and shallow-marine settings in both siliciclastic

A<SMST

EXPLANATIONFluvial and Coastal PlainShoreface and DeltaicShelf and SlopeSubmarine "Fan"

sb2

Interval ofSediment Starvation

a (Maximum Flooding)Maximum

ivSubaerialHiatus ~~STbff , .

_~,; ...... :~ ’" : ........

¯ -DISTANCE

Figure 2 Conceptual cross sections in relation to depth (A) and geological time (B) showing stratalgeometry, the distribution of silieielastie facies, and standard nomenclature for unconformity-bounded depositional sequences in a basin with a shelf-slope break (nmdified from Vail 1987and Vail et ai 1991, specifically to include offlap). Systems tracts: SMST, shelf margin; HST,Itighstand; TST, transgressive; LST, [owstand. Sequence boundaries: sb2, type 2; sbl, type 1.Other abbreviations: iss, interval of sediment starvation (condensed s~ction and maximum floodingsurface of Vail 1987); ts, transgressive surface (top lowstand surface and top shelf-margin surfaceof Vail et al 1991); iv, incised valley; lsw, lowstand progading wedge; sf, slope fma; bff, basin floorfan. Note that in the seismic stratigraphie literature, the term submarine "fan" includes a range ofturbidite systems and sediment-gravity-flew deposits that are not necessarily fan-shaped.

IIll


Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



and carbonate rocks (James 1984; Van Wagoner et al 1988, 1990; Swift et al1991; Pratt et al 1992), and their recognition is undoubtedly useful in sequencestratigraphic analysis. However, the tendency for pigeonholing in sequencestratigraphy tends to obscure rather than to illuminate the range of facies ar-rangements and processes involved. Sedimentary cycles vary from markedlyasymmetrical to essentially symmetrical, with the degree of asymmetry de-creasing in an offshore direction and depending also on whether parasequencesare arranged in a forestepping motif (which favors asymmetry) or a backstep-ping one. (The term forestepping means that each parasequence in a successionrepresents shallower-water conditions overall than the parasequence beneath it.Backstepping refers to the opposite motif: overall deepening upward.) Al-though not strictly included in the definition of the term parasequence, similarsedimentary cycles with the same spectrum of asymmetry are observed in manylacustrine successions (Eugster & Hardie 1975; Steel et al 1977; Olsen 1986,1990). Moreover, shoaling upwards is not the only expression of depositionalcyclicity (for example, in alluvial and tidal deposits and deep-marine turbidites).Objective recognition of a parasequence, as opposed to some other depositionalelement with sharp boundaries, is therefore tenuous in nonmarine and offshoremarine settings unless bounding surfaces can be shown to correlate with marineflooding surfaces.

The concept of parasequences and parasequence sets as the building blocks ofdepositional sequences is also largely a matter of convention rather than a state-ment about how sediments accumulate at different scales. There is clear overlapin the length scales and time scales represented by parasequences and high-ordersequences (Van Wagoner et al 1990, 1991; Kerans & Nance 1991; Mitchum& Van Wagoner 1991; Vail et al 1991; Posamentier & Chamberlain 1993;Posamentier & James 1993; Sonnenfeld & Cross 1993; Christie-Blick et al1995). The distinction between sequences and parasequences is thereforeprimarily a function of whether, at a particular scale of cyclicity, sequenceboundaries can or cannot be objectively identified and mapped. An unfortunateby-product of the quest for sequences and sequence boundaries is to imposesequence nomenclature when parasequence terminology would be more ap-propriate. Flooding surfaces are sometimes interpreted as sequence boundarieswhen no objective evidence for such a boundary exists (e.g. Lindsay 1987,Prave 1991, Lindsay et al 1993, Montafiez & Osleger 1993) or, if a sequenceboundary is present, it is located at a lower stratigraphic level.

Systems Tracts

The threefold subdivision of sequences into systems tracts is based on the phaselag between transgressive-regressive cycles and the development of correspond-ing sequence boundaries (Figure 2B). In the standard model for siliciclasticsedimentation with a shelf-slope break, regression of the shoreline continues


Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



after the development of the sequence boundary, so that the regressive part ofany cycle of sedimentation is divisible into two systems tracts: the highstandbelow the boundary (HST in Figure 2) and the lowstand (or shelf margin) tems tract above it (LST and SMST in Figure 2). The designation of systemstracts has become standard procedure in sequence stratigraphy as if this were anend in itself but, as with parasequences, subjective interpretation and pigeon-holing tend to obscure the natural variability in sedimentary systems. There isno requirement for individual systems tracts to have any particular thicknessor geometry, or even to be represented on a particular profile or in a particularpart of a basin (Posamentier & James 1993). It is common in deep water forlowstand units to be stacked, with intervening transgressive and highstand unitsrepresented by relatively thin intervals of sediment starvation. In shelf areas,the stratigraphy tends to be composed primarily of alternating transgressive andhighstand units, but these vary greatly in thickness and they are not necessarilyeasy to distinguish. Still farther landward, highstands may be stacked with noother systems tracts intervening, a situation that is likely to challenge thoseintent on assigning systems tract nomenclature in nonmarine successions.

The most troublesom, e systems tract is the lowstand, which according tothe original definition of the term represents sedimentation above a sequenceboundary prior to the onset of renewed regional transgression (Figure 2). is characterized by remarkably varied facies and in many cases by a complexinternal stratigraphy that in deep-marine examples continues to be the subject ofvigorous debate (Weimer 1989, Normark et al 1993). The lowstand is also theone element of a depositional sequence that separates it from a transgressive-regressive cycle (e.g. Johnson et a11985, Embry 1988), It is perhaps natural thatsequence stratigraphers have attempted to identify lowstand units, even wherethe presence of such deposits is doubtful (for example, many shelf and rampsettings), because this helps to deflect the criticism that sequence stratigraphy of-fers nothing more than new terminology for long-established concepts. In shelfand ramp settings, the term lowstand is routinely applied to any coarse-grainedand/or nonmarine deposit directly overlying a sequence boundary, especiallywhere such deposits are restricted to an incised valley (e.g. Baum & Vail 1988,Van Wagoner et al 1991, Southgate et al 1993). However, sedimentological andpaleontological evidence for estuarine sedimentation within (fluvially incised)valleys (e.g. Hettinger et al 1993) in many cases precludes the lowstand inter-pretation, because such estuaries develop as a consequence of transgression.JC Van Wagoner (personal communication, 1991) has defended the use of theterm lowstand for estuarine valley fills on the grounds that the differentiationof sandstones within incised valleys from those of the underlying highstandsystems tract is of practical importance for the delineation of reservoirs for oiland gas. However, such commercial objectives can surely be achieved withoutfundamentally altering the systems tract concept.


Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



Variations in Sequence Architecture

Case studies in a great variety of settings have led to attempts to developmodified versions of the standard sequence stratigraphic model. Examples in-clude settings where sedimentation is accompanied by growth faulting, terracedshelves and siliciclastic ramps, carbonate platforms and ramps, nonmarine envi-ronments (fluvial, eolian, and lacustrine), and environments proximal to largeice sheets (Vail 1987; Sarg 1988; Van Wagoner et al 1988, 1990; Boulton1990; Olsen 1990; Vail et al 1991; Greenlee et al 1992; Posamentier et al1992a; Walker & Plint 1992; Dam & Surlyk 1993; Handford & Loucks 1993;Kocurek & Havholm 1993; Schlager et al 1994; Shanley & McCabe 1994).Attempts have also been made to integrate geological studies in outcrop andthe subsurface with seismic profiling and shallow sampling of modern shelvesand estuaries (Demarest & Kraft 1987; Suter et al 1987; Boyd et al 1989;Tesson et al 1990, 1993; Allen & Posamentier 1993, Chiocci 1994), flume ex-periments (Wood et al 1993, Koss et al 1994) and small-scale natural analogues(Posamentier et al 1992b), and computer simulations (Jervey 1988, Helland-Hansen et al 1988, Lawrence et al 1990, Ross 1990, Reynolds et al 1991,Steckler et al 1993, Bosence et al 1994, Ross et al 1994). The main emphasisof these studies has been to document variations in the arrangement of faciesand associated stratal geometry, but among the more interesting results has beenthe emergence of some new ideas about the origin of sequence boundaries andother stratigraphic discontinuities.

ORIGIN OF SEQUENCE BOUNDARIES

The conventional interpretation of sequence boundaries is that they are due toa relative fall of sea level (Posamentier et al 1988, Posamentier & Vail 1988,Sarg 1988, Vail et al 1991). For example, a boundary might be said to developwhen the rate of relative sea-level fall is a maximum or when relative sea levelbegins to fall at some specified break in slope, thereby initiating the incisionof valleys by headward erosion. The concept of relative sea-level change ac-counts qualitatively for the roles of both subsidence and eustasy in controllingthe space available for sediments to accumulate. However, existing models arefundamentally eustatic because it is invariably the eustatic component that isinferred to fluctuate; the rate of subsidence is assumed to vary only slowly, if atall. Here we draw attention to several ways in which the conventional explana-tion of sequence boundaries needs to be modified, particularly in tectonicallyactive basins.

Gradual vs Instantaneous Development of Sequence Boundaries

It is widely assumed that sequence boundaries develop more or less instanta-neously (Posamentier et al 1988, Vail et al 1991). The main evidence for this


Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



the marked asymmetry of depositional sequences, which in seismic reflectionprofiles are characterized by progressive onlap at the base and by a downward(or basinward) shift in onlap at the top (Figure 2; Vail etal 1977, 1984; Haq et 1987). (The term onlap refers to the lateral termination of strata against an un-derlying surface.) Abrupt downward shifts in onlap are taken to imply rates ofrelative sea-level change significantly higher than typical rates of subsidence,and that the sea-level change must therefore be due to eustasy, presumablyglacial-eustasy (Vail et al 1991).

While it is undoubtedly true that glacial-eustasy has played an importantrole in modUlating patterns of sedimentation since Oligocene time (Bartek et al1991, Miller et al 1991), and probably during other glacial intervals in earthhistory, such explanations are not plausible for periods such as the Cretaceousfor which there is very little evidence for glaciation (Frakes et al 1992). Norare such explanatioiis required by available stratigraphic data. In many cases,the highstand systems tract is divisible into two parts: a lower/landward partcharacterized by onlap and sigmoid clinoforms (clinoforms are inclined stratalsurfaces associated with progradation), and an upper/seaward part character-ized by offlap and oblique clinoforms (Figure 2; Christie-Blick 1991). Offlap(the upward termination of strata against an overlying surface) is not likely be due solely to the erosional truncation of originally sigmoid clinoforms, Theprogressive onlap implied by this interpretation is not possible during a timeof increasingly rapid progradation without a marked increase in the sedimentsupply. Moreover, the inferred erosion is unlikely to have taken place in the sub-aerial environment because subaerial erosion tends to be focused within incisedvalleys, and the amount of erosion required in many cases exceeds what canreasonably be attributed to shoreface ravinement during transgression. A morereasonable interpretation is that offlap is due fundamentally to bypassing dur-ing progradation (toplap of Mitchum 1977), implying that sequence boundariesdevelop gradually over a finite interval of geologic time (Christie-Blick 1991).

Support for this idea is provided by recent high-resolution sequence strati-graphic studies in outcrop. A remarkable series of forestepping high-ordersequences is exposed in the upper part of the San Andres Formation, a car-bonate platform of Permian age in the Guadalupe Mountains of southeasternNew Mexico (Figure 3A; Sonnenfeld & Cross 1993). Individual high-ordersequences consist of two half-cycles. The lower half-cycle (primarily transgres-sive) is predominantly siliciclastic and onlaps the underlying sequence bound-ary. The upper half-cycle (regressive) is composed mainly of carbonate rocksand is characterized by onlap and downlap (downward termination of strata) the base and in some instances by offlap at the top. These high-order sequencesare themselves oblique to a prominent low-order sequence boundary at the topof the San Andres Formation (top of sequences uSA4 and uSA5). On the basisof karstification, this surface is interpreted by Sonnenfeld & Cross (1993)


Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



have been exposed subaerially. At the resolution of conventional seismic data,only the low-order sequence boundaries in the San Andres Formation wouldbe identified (Figure 3B) and the oblique truncation of high-order sequenceswould be interpreted as offlap (cf figure 11 of Brink et al 1993). However, thesiliciclastic half-cycles of the high-order sequences indicate that the platformwas bypassed episodically during overall progradation. The sequence bound-ary at the top of the San Andres was therefore not produced by an instantaneousdownward shift in onlap but is instead a composite surface.

Another pertinent example of high-resolution sequence stratigraphy is drawnfrom the work of Van Wagoner and colleagues in a late Cretaceous foreland-basin ramp setting in the Book Cliffs of eastern Utah and western Colorado(Van Wagoner et al 1990, 1991). Numerous sequence boundaries have beendocumented in the strongly progradational succession between the Star PointFormation and Castlegate Sandstone (Figure 4A). Two of the most prominentboundaries are present at the level of the Desert Member of the BlackhawkFormation and Castlegate Sandstone (Figure 5). These boundaries are charac-terized by valleys as much as several tens of meters deep incised into underlying

A

~ SA4/5

EXPLANATION 300 mApprox. Location uSA3

~ Sequence Boundary B of Detail~High-Order Sequence Boundary _,, ,~,~ Grayburg

....... Other Stratal Surfacesne;o~n~ Stratal Termination

o e Sa des ~---------Cutoff~~==,,,

~Sediment Deposited Above ~ BrushyStorm Wave Base

100 m1 ~CanyonSediment Deposited Below .....[~ Storm Wave Base 5 km

Figure 3 (A) Simplified stratigraphic cross section of the upper part of San Andres Formation(Permian) in the Guadalupe Mountains, New Mexico. (B) Schematic representation of the broaderstratigraphic context of the San Andres Formation at the scale of conventional seismic reflectiondata. Individual high-order sequences within sequences uSA4 (numbered 1-12) and uSA5 (num-bered 13-14) are characterized by stratal onlap and offlap and are themselves oblique to a stilllower-order sequence boundary at the top of the San Andres Formation. The datum for crosssection A is the base of the Hayes sandstone oftbe Grayburg Formation. Also shown in B are thenames of other associated lithostratigraphic units. (Modified from Sonnenfeld & Cross 1993.)


Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



AThistle Price Sunnyside Green River Utah I Colo. Palisade

~1 I I I L 1~/~.North Horn (Part)~ ~///~T~$dl~r, FarroW’, ~l~sien

.......... ~~’~ ~ ........Castlegate-

~xX~~--~ ,, _ ~_. . Sandstone&~~~esed Mbr o~ ~~ ..~o oe Blac~awk Fm.

~~ ~ ~ Op~ Marine Shelf~ ~asp ~ Forelapd- ~ Ll~oral ...................and Deltal~~

B Turkey CreekS

50 km Fort Collins ~ Lower Coastal Plainand Incised Valley Fill

Mowry Shale~ Upper Coastal Plain

(~ ~ PiedmontSkull Creek ........... ~ Mostly Nonmarine

......... Plalnview, ~ ~ Sequence Boundary...... Max. Flooding Surface

:’ ......... ’ " -- Other Stratal Surface

Figure 4 Simplified stratigraphic cross section and lithostratigraphic nomenclature for mid- toupper Cretaceous strata in the Book Cliffs, eastern Utah and western Colorado (A; from Nummedal& Remy 1989), with a detail of the Albian sequence stratigraphy (Dakota Group) of noah-centralColorado (B; from Weimer 1984 and RJ Weimer, personal communication, 1988). A detail of theDesert Member of the Blackhawk Formation and Castlegate Sandstone (box in A) is illustratedin Figure 5. The base of the foreland-basin succession is marked approximately by a regionalsequence boundary ai or near the base of the Dakota Sandstone (in A) and at or near the base the Muddy (or J) Sandstone of the Dakota Group (in B). FC refers to the Fort Collins Member, portion of the Muddy Sandstone that locally underlies the sequence boundary.

littoral sandstones, by the offlap of successive parasequences, and by a markedbasinward shift of facies. In the conventional interpretation, the incision ofvalleys by headward erosion from a break in slope near the shoreline ought to

deliver a significant volume of sediment tothe adjacent shelf, and prominentlowstand sandstones would be expected (Van Wagoner et al 1988, 1990). In-stead, each sequence boundary passes laterally into a marine flooding surfaceand eventually into the Mancos Shale (Figure 4A) with little or no evidence forlowstand deposits as this term is defined above.1 Our solution to this apparent

paradox is that the valleys were not incised as a result of headward erosion.

ID Nummedal (personal communication, 1994) has recently identified a possible lowstanddeposit basinward of the Castlegate lowstand shoreline on the basis of well-log interpretation. Thedeposit is perhaps analogous to the relatively thin lowstand units from the Alberta basin describedby Plint (1988, 1991) and Posamentier et al (1992a).


Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



A consequence of the idea that sequence boundaries develop gradually during

highstand progradation is that incised valleys at the Desert and Castlegate se-quence boundaries initially propagated downstream, and that most of the erodedsediment accumulated at the highstand shorelines.

If sequence boundaries do not after all develop instantaneously, it is notnecessary to call upon rapid eustatic change for which there is no plausiblemechanism during nonglacial times. Forward modeling indicates that sequence

West SagersTusher Thompson ’ Thompson Canyon BullCanyon Pass Canyon East Canyon

W

StrychnineWash

Flooding Surfaceat base ofBuck Tongue

CastlegateSequence

SF/E

OT

OT

Sequence BoundaryPasses Laterallyinto Flooding Surface

LSF

OT EXPLANATION

f20 m

~ Marine Shale ...... Max. ~:loodlng Surface

~ Littoral Sandstone Other Stratal SurfaceOT

W Shale Para, llel Lamination10 Current Ripples

\ m Coal

~ Desert Sequence ~ SandstoneEstuarine~-- Cross-stratification~-~ Boundary

o ~ conglomerate ~ cross.stratification

Figure 5 Stratigraphic cross section of the Desert Member of the Blackhawk Formation andCastlegate Sandstone showing depositional facies and sequence geometry (simplified from VanWagoner et al 199l, Nummedal & Cole 1994). See Figure 4 for location. The two sequenceboundaries illustrated are characterized up-dip (west) by well-developed incised valleys. The Desertsequence boundary passes down-dip (eastward) in the vicinity of Sagers Canyon into a marine flood-ing surface that was probably modified by ravinement during transgression. A similar transition isobserved in the Castlegate Sandstone as it is traced farther eastward. Note the presence of offlap-ping parasequences beneath each sequence boundary. Abbreviations for generalized paleoenviron-merits: BF, braided fluvial; SF/E, sinuous fluvial/estuarine; FS, foreshore; USF, upper shoreface;LSF, lower shoreface; OT, offshore transition. Systems tracts (modified from the interpretations ofVan Wagoner et al 1991 and Nummedal & Cole 1994): HST, highstand; TST, transgressive. Someuncertainty exists about the location of the interval of maximum flooding in the Desert sequence ow-ing to the difficulty of interpreting parasequence stacking trends in thin sections: It is at or slightlyabove the dashed line labeled Ravinement Surface (D Nummedal, personal communication, 1994).


Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



boundaries can be produced by eustatic fluctuations at rates comparable totypical rates of tectonic subsidence and that they do so by gradual basinwardexpansion and subsequent burial of zones of bypassing and/or erosion (Christie-Blick 1991, Steckler et al 1993). Consequently, if the rate of eustatic changerequired to generate a sequence boundary is small, there is no reason to assumethat sequence boundaries are necessarily due to eustatic change.

Tectonically Active Basins

In the light of these considerations, how do sequence boundaries develop intectonically active settings such as extensional, foreland, and strike-slip basins?One view, which is almost certainly incorrect, is that the local development ofsequence boundaries in such basins may be entirely tectonic in origin (Underhill1991). Another view is that tectonic processes control long-term patterns ofsubsidence and that short-term depositional cyclicity is due to eustatic change(e.g. Vail et al 1991, Devlin et al 1993, Lindsay et al 1993). Again, this an assumption that in many cases is probably not warranted for times in earthhistory when rates of eustatic change were comparable to rates of tectonicsubsidence (e.g. Cretaceous). Sequence boundaries are not merely enhanced obscured by tectonic activity (cf Vail et al 1984, 1991). Both their timing andtheir very existence are due to the combined effects of eustasy and variationsin patterns of subsidence/uplift and sediment supply. The roles of these factorsand the manner in which they interact are admittedly very difficult to sort out,but recent studies provide some useful first-order clues.

An important attribute of tectonically active basins is that it is possible for therate of tectonic subsidence to increase and decrease simultaneously in differentparts of the same basin (Figure 6). Sequence boundaries that are fundamentallyof tectonic rather than eustatic origin cannot therefore be attributed satisfactorilyto the concept of a relative sea-level fall or even an increase in the rate of relativesea-level fall, because relative sea-level may have been both rising and fallingat an increasing rate in different places.

In this regard, patterns of subsidence and uplift in foreland and extensionalbasins are actually very similar during times of active deformation as well asquiescence (Christie-Blick & Driscoll 1994). In the case of a foreland basin,loading by the adjacent orogen leads to regional subsidence and to uplift inthe vicinity of the peripheral bulge, with a wavelength and amplitude that aregoverned by the flexural rigidity of the lithosphere (Figure 6A; Beaumont 1981,Karner & Watts 1983). Uplift may also occur locally at the proximal marginof the basin as a result of the propagation of thrust faults at depth. Similarly, inextensional basins, subsidence and tilting of the hanging-wall block (above thefault in Figure 6) are accompanied by uplift of the footwall (below the fault;Wernicke & Axen 1988, Weissel & Karner 1989). During times of tectonicquiescence, these patterns are reversed, although the amplitudes are small in


Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



A ACTIVE DEFORMATION

Foreland basin

j ~ ~ Peripheral Bulge

B QUIESCENCEForeland basin

Thrusting

Extensional basin

Normal Faulting

~ Footwall

ThermalExtensional basin Subsidence

EXPLANATION

Hanging Wall [~ Sediment NNNN Water

Figure 6 Schematic diagrams comparing patterns of uplift and subsidence in foreland and exten-sional basins during times of active deformation (A) and quiescence (B). See text for discussion.

comparison with the deflections engendered by active deformation (Figure 6B;Heller et al 1988, Jordan & Flemings 1991). Erosional unloading leads toregional rebound of the orogen and adjacent depocenter and to depressionof the peripheral bulge. At the same time, the accumulation of terrigenoussediment derived from the orogen results in additional subsidence at the distalside of the basin and to lateral migration of the peripheral bulge away from theorogen (Jordan & Flemings 1991). A similar pattern of uplift and subsidencemay arise during times of tectonic quiescence in extensional basins, through acombination of erosional unloading of the footwall block and thermally drivensubsidence, especially when the latter is offset from the original depocenter (asillustrated in Figure ,6B).

More complicated scenarios can also be envisaged. For example, forelandbasins are commonly segmented by block-faulting, and lithospheric extensionmay be accommodated by a series of tilted fault blocks or distributed inho-mogeneously as a function of depth and lateral position within the lithosphere.Subsidence and uplift may also be complicated in three dimensions by the pres-ence of salients in the orogen or of accommodation zones in extensional basins.Patterns of subsidence and uplift in strike-slip basins tend to be even more com-plicated and subject to marked changes on short time scales (Christie-Blick Biddle 1985).

The development and characteristics of sequence boundaries in tectonicallyactive basins are directly related to patterns of subsidence and uplift of thesort outlined here and to the fact that the patterns vary between times of ac-tive deformation and quiescence. At a regional scale, the progradation of


Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



sedimentary systems, the filling of available accommodation with sediment,the lowering of depositional base level, and the incision of valleys are favoredduring times of tectonic quiescence (e.g. Heller et al 1988). In contrast, activedeformation is associated with regional subsidence and tilting, flooding andbackstepping of sedimentary systems, an increase in topographic relief alongthe faulted basin margins, and a narrowing of the depocenter (e.g. Underhill1991). In both foreland and extensional basins, the most prominent sequenceboundaries therefore are expected to correspond with the onset of deformation.These boundaries consist of subaerial exposure surfaces that pass laterally intomarine onlap/downlap surfaces of regional extent (Jordan & Flemings 1991,Underhill 1991, Driscoll 1992, Christie-Blick & Driscoll 1994, Driscoll et al1995). In contrast to the standard model, the formation of a sequence boundaryis not necessarily associated with a basinward shift in facies, and where present,such facies shifts may be restricted to areas that were subaerially exposed. Thedevelopment of topographic relief may in some cases lead to the accumula-tion of thick successions of turbidites in deep water. However, contrary to theconventional interpretation, these deposits are not strictly "lowstands" if theyaccumulate during a time of regional flooding [see Southgate et al (1993) andHolmes & Christie-Blick (1993) for a possible example from the Devonian the Canning basin, Australia].

Several of these points can be illustrated with reference to the late Cre-taceous foreland basin of Utah and Colorado (Figure 4). The base of theforeland-basin succession in eastern Utah and Colorado corresponds approx-imately with a regional sequence boundary at or near the base of the DakotaSandstone (Figure 4A) and at or near the base of the Muddy (or J) Sandstoneof the Dakota Group (Figure 4B). The succession above this surface is charac-terized by a marked increase in the rate of sediment accumulation and by anabrupt transition from nonmarine to relatively deep marine sedimentary rocks(Mancos/Mowry Shale; Heller et al 1986, Vail et al 1991). These features arefundamentally attributable to the onset in late Albian time of a phase of crustaldeformation and accelerated subsidence; the contribution of eustatic changeis indeterminate but is presumed to have been small. We do not preclude thepossibility of slightly earlier (late Aptian to Albian, pre-Dakota) foreland-basindevelopment to the west (Yingling & Heller 1992), but the strata are entirelynonmarine and the evidence is equivocal. Within the foreland-basin succes-sion, the origin of other sequence boundaries is less firmly established, butthe Blackhawk Formation and Castlegate Sandstone exhibit features that areconsistent with our model. The Blackhawk and lower/distal part of the Castle-gate (below the Castlegate sequence boundary; Figure 5) are characterized strong progradation and the development of offlap, consistent with erosionalunloading of the orogen during a time of tectonic quiescence (cf Posamentier& Allen 1993). The upper/proximal part of the Castlegate (above the sequence


Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



boundary) is transgressive and, as datumed from a flooding surface at the base ofthe Buck Tongue of the Mancos Shale, it thickens towards the orogen (Figure 5).At a regional scale, it appears to pass laterally into syn-orogenic conglomerate(Price River Formation) and to overstep the Blackhawk Formation, which wasuplifted and bevelled to the west (Figure 4). These features make it hard to ar-gue that the Castlegate sequence boundary developed solely or even primarilyas a result of eustatic change.

A seismic example of sequence development related to episodic block fault-ing in an extensional setting is provided by a seismic reflection profile (lineNF-79-108) from the Jeanne d’Arc basin of offshore eastern Canada (Figure 7).The basin records a series of extensional events between late Triassic and earlyCretaceous time (Jansa & Wade 1975, Tankard et al 1989, McAlpine 1991);Figure 7 illustrates the last of these prior to the onset in late Aptian time ofseafloor spreading between the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and the Iberianpeninsula. Reflections below the late Barremian unconformity are approxi-mately parallel and concordant with the unconformity. Above this surface, theonlap of reflections and their divergence towards the border fault document theonset of crustal extension. Similar reflection geometry is evident at the earlyAptian and late Aptian unconformities, although reflections are approximatelyparallel above the latter. This is taken to indicate that extension had ceased bylate Aptian time (Driscoll 1992, Driscoll et al 1995). Evidence from availablecore indicates that the onlap surfaces are associated with upward deepeningof depositional facies, but the surfaces are interpreted as sequence boundariesbecause they are inferred to pass laterally into subaerial exposure surfaces. Theobserved geometry requires rifting between late Barremian and late Aptian time.Our preferred interpretation is that each of the mapped sequence boundariesrecords times of accelerated block tilting. An alternative interpretation, thatthe early and late Aptian boundaries are due primarily to eustatic fluctuationsduring a time of more or less continuous block tilting, is not consistelat with theabsence of anticipated lowstand deposits in closed paleobathymetric lows (forexample, at the Mercury K-76 well, Figure 7).

Role of In-Plane Force Variations in the Origin of High-Order

Sequence Boundaries

One of the main arguments for interpreting high-order depositional sequencesin terms of eustatic change is the absence of another suitable mechanism. Wehave seen in the Jeanne d’Arc basin example that episodic tilting may providesuch a mechanism in extensional basins. However, difficulties arise in forelandbasins because, in such settings, subsidence is driven primarily by the integratedvertical load of the orogen. This can change only slowly through a combinationof internal deformation, the propagation of thrust faults into the syn-orogenicsediments, and the erosion of topography (Sinclair et al 1991).


Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



An imaginative and somewhat controversial solution to this dilemma hasemerged from the recognition and modeling of in-plane force variations inthe lithosphere (Lambeck 1983, Cloetingh et al 1985, Karner 1986, Braun& Beaumont 1989, Karner et al 1993). The best evidence for the existenceof such forces is the incidence of intraplate earthquakes (e.g. Lambeck et al1984, Bergman & Solomon 1985). Changes in in-plane force are thought toresult from changes in the plate-boundary forces associated with, for example,ridge-push, slab-pull, and collisional tectonics (Sykes & Sbar 1973, Cloetingh& Wortel 1985, Zoback et al 1989). Although uncertainty exists about boththe magnitude of the forces and the time scale over which they might vary,it is not unreasonable to think that such forces may be relevant to the de-velopment of some sequence boundaries. The response of the lithosphere toin-plane compression consists of two components, one elastic (flexural) andthe other inelastic (brittle; Goetze & Evans 1979, Karner et al 1993). Thebrittle component, which is associated with deformation in the upper part ofthe lithosphere, is influenced by the preexisting structure of the crust and theorientation of faults with respect to the applied tectonic force. It includes thewell-known phenomenon of extensional basin inversion. The flexural responseto in-plane compression depends on the shape of any preexisting deflection ofthe lithosphere, the amplitude of the applied force, and the flexural strength ofthe lithosphere at the time the force was applied. In the case of foreland basins,the predicted flexural response to compression consists of enhanced subsidencein the depocenter, uplift of the peripheral bulge, and a reduction in the flexuralwavelength. The amplitude of subsidence and uplift produced in this way areapproximately the same because the wavelengths of features being selectivelymodified are approximately equal (Karner et al 1993). The predicted flexuralresponse for extensional basins is quite different. In-plane compression resultsin uplift of the depocenter and increased subsidence of the basin margins. In-plane tension leads to uplift of the basin margins and to enhanced subsidence ofthe depocenter (Braun & Beaumont 1989, Karner et al 1993). The amplitudeand wavelength of the flexural deformation are a strong function of the exten-sional basin geometry and, in the case of basins undergoing post-rift thermalsubsidence, of the spatial relationship between rift basins and any associatedpassive continental margin.

In view of these considerations, our concepts of active deformation andtectonic quiescence need to be modified. With respect to this second-ordereffect, panels that in Figure 6 are labeled "active deformation" include timesof increased in-plane compression in the foreland basin example and decreasedin-plane compression (increased tension) in the extensional basin example.Owing to the relatively short length scales relevant to extensional basins (tensof kilometers), it is anticipated that the stratigraphy of such basins ought to beinfluenced strongly even at short time scales by episodic block tilting (the brittle


Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



E m 0 u-

W

? Y

h b IL z aJ C -I .-


Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



: Ill/I II


Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



component of the deformation). In contrast, because the integrated verticalload of an orogen changes only slowly (millions to tens of millions of years;Sinclair et al 1991), the stratigraphy of foreland basins ought to be much moresensitive on short time scales to the flexural effects of changes in in-plane com-pression, providing that the forces involved are sufficiently large. A possibletest of this idea is to compare the stratal geometry of sequences of differentscale in the same basin. If high-order sequences are due to eustatic change, asmany have inferred (e.g. Posamentier & Allen 1993), their geometry ought reflect overall patterns of subsidence. If they are instead a result of changes inin-plane compression, high-order transgressive systems tracts ought to thickenpreferentially toward the orogen relative to associated highstand units (as ap-pears to be the case in the Castlegate example), and backstepping sequencesought to thicken toward the orogen relative to forestepping sequences. Thecomplications associated with lateral changes in facies, compaction, and waterdepth can be reduced by studying transects parallel to shorelines across fore-land basins with axial drainage (for example, the Dunvegan Formation of theAlberta basin; Plint 1994).

CONCLUSIONS

Sequence stratigraphy is concerned with the analysis of sediments and sedimen-tary rocks with reference to the manner in which they accumulate layer by layer.As a practical technique and in spite of existing terminology, it requires no as-sumptions about eustasy. One of the principal frontiers of the discipline is aneffort to develop an understanding of the many interrelated factors that governsediment transport and accumulation in a great range of depositional settingsand environments. The conventional interpretation of sequence boundaries isthat they are due to a relative fall of sea level and that they develop more orless instantaneously. In this paper we argue that in many cases such boundariesform gradually over a finite interval of geologic time. The widely employedconcept of relative sea-level change provides few insights into how sequenceboundaries actually develop, especially in tectonically active basins.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This paper is an outgrowth of more than a decade of research in sequencestratigraphy in a wide variety of depositional and tectonic settings. We are in-debted to numerous colleagues for stimulating discussions of the issues, and wethank M Steckler and L Sohl for reviewing the manuscript. We acknowledgesupport from the National Science Foundation (Earth Sciences and Ocean Sci-ences); Office of Naval Research; the Donors of the Petroleum Research Fund,administered by the American Chemical Society; and the Arthur D StorkeMemorial Fund of the Department of Geological Sciences, Columbia Univer-sity. This paper is Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory Contribution No. 5257.


Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



Any Annual.Review chapter, as well as any article cited in an Annual Review chapter,may be purchased from the Annual Reviews Preprints and Reprints service.

1-800-347.8007; 415-259-5017; emaih [email protected]

Literature Cited

Allen GP, Posamentier HW. 1993. Sequencestratigraphy and facies model of an incisedvalley fill: the Gironde Estuary, France. J.Sediment. Petrol. 63:378-91

BartekLR, Vail PR, Anderson JB, Emmet PA,Wu S. 1991. Effect of Cenozoic ice sheetfluctuations in Antarctica on the stratigraphicsignature of the Neogene. J. Geophys. Res.96:6753-78

Baum GR, Vail PR. 1988. Sequence strati-graphic concepts applied to Paleogene out-crops, Gulf and Atlantic basins. See Wilguset al 1988, pp. 309-27

Beaumont C. 1981. Foreland basins. Geophys.J. R. Astron. Soc. 65:291-329

Bergman EA, Solomon SC. 1985. Earthquakesource mechanisms from body-waveform in-version and intraplate tectonics in the north-ern Indian Ocean. Phys. Earth Plant. Inter.4:1-23

Berg OR, Woolverton DG, eds. 1985. SeismicStratigraphy H: An Integrated Approach toHydrocarbon Exploration. Am. Assoc. PetrolGeol. Mem. 39. 276 pp.

Blum MD. 1993. Genesis and architecture ofincised valley fill sequences: a late Quater-nary example from the Colorado River, Gulfcoastal plain of Texas. See Weimer & Posa-mentier 1993, pp. 259-84

Bosence DWJ, Pomar L, Waltham DA,Lankester HG. 1994. Computer modelinga Micocene carbonate platform, Mallorca,Spain. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull. 78:247-66

Boulton GS. 1990. Sedimentary and sea levelchanges during glacial cycles and their con-trol on glacimarine facies architecture. InGlacimarine Environments: Processes andSediments, ed. JA Dowdeswell, JD Scourse,pp. 15-52. Geol. Soc. London Spec. Publ. 53.423 pp.

Bowring SA, Grotzinger JP. 1992. Implicationsof new chronostratigraphy for tectonic evolu-tion of Wopmay orogen, northwest Canadianshield. Am. J. Sci. 292:1-20

Boyd R, Suter J, Penland S. 1989. Relation ofsequence stratigraphy to modern sedimentaryenvironments. Geology 17:926-29

Braun J, Beaumont C. 1989. A physical expla-nation of the relation between flank upliftsand the breakup unconformity at rifted conti-nental margins. Geology 17:760-64

Brink GJ, Keenan HG, Brown LF Jr. 1993. De-position of fourth-order, post-rift sequencesand sequence sets, lower Cretaceous (lowerValanginian to lower Aptian), Pletmos Basin,

southern offshore, South Africa. See Weimer& Posamentier 1993, pp. 393-410

Brown LF Jr, Fisher WL. 1977. Seismic strati-graphic interpretation of depositional sys-tems: examples from the Brazilian rift andpull-apart basins. See Payton 1977, pp. 213-48

Burton R, Kendall CGStC, Lerche I. 1987. Outof our depth: on the impossibility of fath-oming eustasy from the stratigraphic record.Earth-Sci. Rev. 24:237-77

Cathles LM, Hallam A. 1991. Stress-inducedchanges in plate density, Vail sequences,epeirogeny, and short-lived global sea levelfluctuations. Tectonics 10:659-71

Chiocci FL. 1994. Very high-resolution seismicsas a tool for sequence stratigraphy appliedto outcrop scale---examples from easternTyrrhenian margin Holocene/Pleistocene de-posits. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull. 78:378-95

Christie-Blick N. 1990. Sequence stratigraphyand sea-level changes in Cretaceous time. InCretaceous Resources, Events and Rhythms,ed. RN Ginsburg, B Beaudoin, pp. 1-21. Dor-drecht: Kluwer, NATO ASI Series C, 304.352 pp.

Christie-Blick N. 1991. Onlap, offlap, and theorigin of unconformity-bounded depositionalsequences. Mar. Geol. 97:35-56

Christie-Blick N, Biddle KT, eds. 1985. Strike-Slip Deformation, Basin Formation, and Sed-imentation. Soc. Econ. Paleontol. Mineral.Spec. Publ. No. 37. 386 pp.

Christie-Blick N, Driscoll, NW. 1994. Relativesea-level change and the origin of sequenceboundaries in tectonically active settings. Am.Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Annu. Conv., Denver, Ab-str. 121

Ctu’istie-Blick N, Dyson IA, von der Borch CC.1995. Sequence stratigraphy and the inter-pretation of Neoproterozoic Earth history. InTerminal Proterozoic Stratigraphy and EarthHistory, ed. AH Knoll, MR Walter. Precam-brian Res. (Special issue). In press

Christie-Blick N, Grotzinger JP, yon der BotchCC. 1988. Sequence stratigraphy in Protero-zoic successions. Geology 16:100-4

Christie-Blick N, Mountain GS, Miller KG.1990. Seismic stratigraphic record of sea-level change. In Sea-Level Change, pp. 116-140. Natl. Acad. Sci. Stud. Geophys. 234 pp.

Cloetingh S. 1988. Intraplate stresses: a new el-ement in basin analysis. In New Perspectivesin Basin Analysis (Pettijohn Volume), ed. Kleinspehn, C Paola, pp. 205-23. New York:


Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



Springer-Verlag. 453 pp.Cloetingh S, McQueen H, Lambeck K. 1985. On

a tectonic mechanism for regional sea-levelvariations, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 75:157-66

Cloetingh S, Wonel R. 1985. Regional stressfield of the Indian Plate. Geophys. Res. Letts.12:77-80

Cross TA, Lessenger MA. 1988. Seismic stratig-raphy. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 16:319-54

Dam G, Surlyk F. 1992. Forced regresssions ina large wave- and storm-dominated anoxiclake, Rhaetian-Sinemurian Kap Stewart For-mation, F.ast Greenland. Geology 20:749-52

Demarest JM II, Kraft JC. 1987. Stratigraphicrecord of Quaternary sea levels: implicationsfor more ancient strata. In Sea-Level Fluctua-tion and Coastal Evolution, ed. 13 Nummedal,OH Pilkey, JD Howard, pp. 223-39. Soc.Econ. Paleontol. Mineral Spec. PubL No. 41.267 pp.

Devlin WJ, Rudolph KW, Shaw CA, EhmanKD. 1993. The effect of tectonic and eustaticcycles on accommodation and sequence-stratigraphic framework in the Upper Cre-taceous foreland basin of southwesternWyoming. See Posamentier et al 1993, pp.501-20

Dott RH Jr, ed. 1992. Eustasy: The HistoricalUps and Downs of a Major Geological Con-cept. Geol. Soc. Am. Mem. 180. 111 pp.

Driscoll NW. 1992. Tectonic and depositionalprocesses inferred from stratal relationships.PhD dissertation. Columbia Univ., New York.464 pp.

Driscoll NW, Hogg JR, Christie-Blick N, KarnerGD. 1995. Extensional tectonics in the Jeanned’Arc Basin: implications for the timing ofbreak-up between Grand Banks and Iberia. InOpening of the North Atlantic, ed, RA Scrut-ton. Geol. Soc. London Spec. Publ. In press

Ddscoll NW, Karner GD. 1994. Flexural defor-mation due to Amazon Fan loading: a feed-back mechanism affecting sediment deliveryto margins. Geology 22:1015-18

Ebdon CC, Fraser A J, Higgins AC, Mitch-ener BC, Strank ARE. 1990. The Dinantianstratigraphy of the East Midlands: a seis-mostratigraphic approach. J. Geol. Soc. Lon,don 147:519-36

Embry AE 1988. Triassic sea-level changes:evidence from the Canadian Arctic Ar-chipelago. See Wilgus et al 1988, pp. 249-59

Eugster HP, Hardie LA. 1975. Sedimentation inan ancient playa-lake complex: the WilkinsPeak Member of the Green River Formationof Wyoming. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull 86:319-34

Flint SS, Bryant ID, eds. 1993. The GeologicalModelling of Hydrocarbon Reservoirs andOutcrop Analogues. Int, Assoc. Sedimentol,Spec. Publ. 15. 269 pp.

Frakes LA, Francis JE, Syktus JI. 1992. ClimateModes of the Phanerozoic. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge Univ. Press. 274 pp.Galloway WE. 1989. Genetic stratigraphic se-

quences in basin analysis I: architecture andgenesis of flooding-surface bounded deposi-tional units. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull.73:125-42

Garcfa-Mond6jar J, Femfmdez-Mendiola PA.1993. Sequence stratigraphy and systemstracts of a mixed carbonate and siliciclasticplatform-basin setting: the albian of Lunadaand Soba, northern Spain. Am. Assoc. Petrol.Geol. Bull. 77:245-75

Goetze G, Evans B. 1979. Stress and tempera-ture in the bending lithosphere as constrainedby experimental rock mechanics. Geophys. J.R. Astron. Soc. 59:463-78

Greenlee SM, Devlin W J, Miller KG, MountainGS, Flemings PB. 1992. Integrated sequencestratigraphy of Neogene deposits, New Jer-sey continental shelf and slope: comparisonwith the Exxon model. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull.104:1403-1 l

Grotzinger JP, Adams RD, McCormick DS, My-row P. 1989. Sequence stratigraphy, correla-tions between Wopmay orogen and Kilohigokbasin, and further investigations of the BearCreek Group (Goulburn Supergroup), Dis-trict of Mackenzie, N.W.T. Geol. Surv. Can.Pap. 89-1C:107-19

Handford CR, Loucks RG, 1993. Carbonatedepositional sequences and systems tracts--responses of carbonate platforms to relativesea-level changes. See Loucks & Sarg 1993,pp. 3-41

Haq BU. 1,99 I. Sequence stratigraphy, sea-levelchange, and significance for the deep sea. InSedimentation, Tectonics and Eustasy. Sea-Level Changes at Active Margins, ed. DIMMacdonald, pp. 3-39. Int. Assoc. Sedimentol.Spec. Publ. 12. 518 pp.

Haq BU, Hardenbol J, Vail PR. 1987. Chronol-ogy of fluctuating sea levels since the Triassic.Science 235: 1156-67

Haq BU, Hardenbol J, Yall PR. 1988. Mesozoicand Cenozoic chronostratigraphy and cyclesof sea-level change. See Wilgus et al 1988,pp. 71-108

Helland-Hansen W, Kendall CGStC, Lerche I,Nakayama K. 1988. A simulation of con-tinental basin margin sedimentation in re-sponse to crustal movements, eustatic sealevel change, and sediment accumulationrates. Math. Geol. 20:777-802

Heller PL, Angevine CL, Winslow NS, PaolaC. 1988. Two-phase stratigraphic model offoreland-basin sequences. Geology 16:501-4

Heller PL, Bowdler SS, Chambers HP, CooganJC, Hagen ES, et al. 1986. Time of initialthrusting in the Sevier orogenic belt, Idaho-Wyoming and Utah. Geology 14:388-91

Hettinger PD, McCabe PJ, Shanley KW. 1993.Detailed facies anatomy of transgressive andhighstand systems tracts from the Upper Cre-


Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


taceous of southern Utah, U.S.A. See Weimer& Posamentier 1993, pp. 43-70

Holmes AE, Chdstie-Blick N. 1993. Originof sedimentary cycles in mixed earbonate-siliciclastic systems: an example fromthe Canning basin, Western Australia. SeeLoucks & Sarg 1993, pp. 181-212

Jacquin T, Arnaud-Vanneau A, Amand H,Ravenne C, Vail PR. 1991. Systems tracts anddepositional sequences in a carbonate setting:a study of continuous outcrops from platformto basin at the scale of seismic lines. MarPetrol Geol. 8:122-39

James NP. 1984. Shallowing-upward sequencesin carbonates. In Facies Models, ed. RGWalker, pp. 213-28. Toronto: Geosci. Can.Reprint Ser. 1. 317 pp. 2nd ed.

Jansa LF, Wade JA. 1975. Geology of the conti-nental margin offNova Scotia and Newfound-land. Geol. Surv. Can. Pap. 74-30:51-105

Jervey MT. 1988. Quantitative geological mod-eling of siliciclastic rock sequences and theirseismic expression. See Wilgus et a11988, pp.47-69

Johnson JG, Klapper G, Sandberg CA. 1985.Devonian eustatic fluctuations in Euramerica.Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 96:567-87

Johnson SD. 1994. High Resolution SequenceStratigraphy: Innovations and Applications.Liverpool: Univ. Liverpool. 410 pp.

Jordan TE, Flemings PB. 1991. Large-scalestratigraphic architecture, eustatic variation,and unsteady tectonism: a theoretical evalu-ation. J. Geophys. Res. 96:6681-99

Kamer GD. 1986. Effects of lithospherie in-plane stress on sedimentary basin stratigra-phy. Tectonics 5:573-88

Karner GD, Driscoll NW, Weissel JK. 1993. Re-sponse of the lithosphere to in-plane forcevariations. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 114:397-416

Karner GD, Watts AB. 1983. Gravity anoma-lies and flexure of the lithosphere at mountainranges. J. Geophys. Res. 88:10,449-77

Kendall CGStC, Lerehe I. 1988. The rise and fallof eustasy. See Wilgus et al 1988, pp. 3-17

KendallCGStC, Moore P, Whittle G, Cannon R.1992.A challenge: Is it possible to determineeustasy and does it matter? See Dott 1992, pp.93-107

Kerans C, Nance HS. 1991. High frequencycyclicity and regional depositional patterns ofthe Grayburg Formation, Guadalupe Moun-tains, New Mexico. In Sequence Stratigra-phy, Facies, and Reservoir Geometries of theSan Andres, Grayburg, and Queen Forma.tions, Guadalupe Mountains, New Mexicoand Texas, ed. S Meader-Roberts, MG Can-delada, GE Moore, pp. 53-69. Permian Basinsection, SEPM (Soc. Sediment. Geol.) Publ.91-32. 141 pp.

Kocurek G, Havholm KG. 1993. Eolian eventstratigraphy--a conceptual framework. See

Weimer & Posamentier 1993, pp. 393-410Koss JE, Ethddge FG, Schumm SA. 1994. An

experimental study of the effects of base-levelchange on fluvial, coastal plain and shelf sys-tems. J. Sedimentol, Res. B64:90-98

Lambeck K. 1983. The role of compressiveforces in intracratonic basin formation andmid,plate orogenics. Geophys. Res. Lett.10:845-48

Lambeck K, McQueen HWS, Stephenson RA,Denham D. 1984. The state of stress withinthe Australian continent. Ann. Geophys.2:723-41

Lawrence DT, Doyle M, Aigner T. 1990. Strati-graphic simulation of sedimentary basins:concepts and calibration, Am. Assoc, Petrol.Geol. Bull 74:273-95

Leckie DA, Posamentier HW, Lovell RWW, eds.1991. NUNA Conf. on High-Resolution Se-quence Stratigraphy. Toronto: Geol. Assoc.Can. 186 pp.

Levy M, Chdstie-Blick N. 1991. Late Protero-zoic paleogeography of the eastern GreatBasin. In Paleozoic Paleogeography of theWestern UnitedStates--ll, ed. JD Cooper, CHStevens, pp. 371-86. Pacific Section, SEPM,Book 67, Vol. 1. 461 pp.

Lindsay JF. 1987. Sequence stratigraphy and de-positional controls in Late Proterozoic-EarlyCambrian sediments of the Amadeus basin,central Australia, Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol.Bull. 71:1387--403

Lindsay JF, Kennard JM, Southgate PN. 1993.Application of sequence stratigraphy in an in-.tracratonie setting, Amadeus basin, centralAustralia. See Posamentier et al 1993, pp.605-31

Loucks RG, Sarg JF, eds. 1993. Carbonate Se-quence Stratigraphy. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol.Mere. 57. 545 pp.

Loutit TS, ed. 1992. Sea-Level Working Group.JOIDES J. 18(3):28-36

Loutit TS, Hardenbol J, Vail PR, Baum GR.1988. Condensed sections: the key to agedeterminations and correlation of continen-tal margin sequences. See Wilgus et al 1988,pp. 183-213

McAlpine KD. 1990. Mesozoic stratigraphy,sedimentary evolution, and petroleum poten-tial of the Jeanne d’Arc basin, Grand Banks ofNewfoundland. Geol. Surv. Can. Pap. 89-17

Miller KG, Wright JD, Fairbanks RG. 1991. Un-locking the ice house: Oligocene-Mioceneoxygen isotopes, eustasy, and margin erosion.J. Geophys. Res. 96:6829-48

Mitchum RM Jr. 1977. Seismic stratigraphy andglobal changes of sea level, part 11: glossaryof terms used in seismic stratigraphy. See Pay-ton 1977, pp. 205-12

Mitchum RM Jr, Van Wagoner JC. 1991.High-frequency sequences and their stack-ing patterns: sequence-stratigraphic evidenceof high-frequency eustatic cycles. Sediment.


Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



Geol. 70:131-60Montafiez IP, Osleger DA. 1993. Parasequence

stacking patterns, third-order accommoda-tion events, and sequence stratigraphy ofMiddle to Upper Cambrian platform car-bonates, Bonanza King Formation, southernGreat Basin. See Loucks & Sarg 1993, pp.305-26

Mutti E, Davoli G, Mora S, Sgavetti M, eds.1994. The Eastern Sector of the South-Central Folded Pyrenean Foreland: Cri-teria for Stratigraphic Analysis and Ex-cursion Notes. Second High-Resolution Se-quence Stratigraphy Confi 83 pp.

North American Commission on StratigrapbicNomenclature. 1983. North American Strati-graphic Code. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull.67:841-75

Normark WR, Posamentier HW, Mutti E. 1993.Turbidite systems: state of the art and futuredirections. Rev. Geophys. 31:91 - 116

Nummedal D, Cole RD. 1994. The BookCliffs--again: relative sea level fail and de-positional systems response. See Posamentier& Mutti 1994, pp. 147-51

Nummedal D, Remy R, eds. 1989. CretaceousShelf Sandstones and Shelf Depositional Se-quences, Western Interior Basin, Utah, Col-orado and New Mexico. 28th Int. Geol. Congr.Field Trip Guidebook Tl19. Washington, DC:Am. Geophys. Union. 87 pp.

Officer CB, Drake CL. 1985. Epeirogeny on ashort geological time scale. Tectonics 4:603-12

Olsen PE. 1986. A 40-million-year lake recordof early Mesozoic orbital climatic forcing.Science 234:842-48

Olsen PE. 1990. Tectonic, climatic, and bi-otic modulations of Lacustrine ecosystems--examples from Newark Supergroup of east-ern North America. In Lacustrine BasinExploration--Case Studies and ModernAnalogs, ed. BJ Katz, pp. 209-24. Am. As-soc. Petrol. Geol. Mem. 50. 340 pp.

Payton CE, ed. 1977. Seismic Stratigraphy--Applications to Hydrocarbon Exploration.Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Mem. 26. 516 pp.

Plint AG. 1988. Sharp-based shoreface se-quences and "offshore bars" in the CardiumFormation of Alberta: their relationship torelative changes in sea level. See Wilgus et al1988, pp. 357-70

Plint AG. 1991. High-frequency relative sea-level oscillations in Upper Cretaceous shelfelastics of the Alberta foreland basin: possi-ble evidence for glacio-eustatic control? InSedimentation, Tectonics and Eustasy, SeaLevel Changes at Active Margins, ed. DIMMacdonald, pp. 409-28. Int. Assoc. Sedimen-tol. Spec. Publ. 12. 518 pp.

Plint AG. 1994. Sheep from goats: separatingeustatic from tectonic controls on 4th ordersequence development: Cenomanian Dunve-

gan Formation, Alberta foreland basin. SeePosamentier & Mutti 1994, pp. 153-58

Posamentier HW, Allen GP. 1993. Siliciclas-tic sequence stratigraphic patterns in forelandramp-type basins. Geology 21:455-58

Posamentier HW, Allen GP, James DP. 1992b.High resolution sequence stratigraphy--theEast Coulee Delta, Alberta. J. Sediment.Petrol. 62:310-17

Posamentier HW, Allen GP, James DP, Tes-son M. 1992a. Forced regressions in a se-quence stratigraphic framework: concepts,examples, and exploration significance. Am.Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull 76:1687-709

Posamentier HW, Chamberlain CJ. 1993. Se-quence stratigraphic analysis of Viking For-mation lowstand beach deposits at JoarcamField, Alberta, Canada. See Posamentier et al1993, pp. 469-85

Posamentier HW, James DP. 1993. An overviewof sequence-stratigraphic concepts: uses andabuses. See Posamentier et al 1993, pp. 3-18

Posamentier HW, Jervey MT, Vail PR. 1988.Eustatic controls on clastic deposition I--conceptual framework. See Wilgus et al 1988,pp. 109-24

Posamentier HW, Mutti E, convenors. 1994.Second High-Resolution Sequence Stratigra-phy Conference. Int. Union Geol. Sci. andGlobal Sed. Geol. Prog. 221 pp.

Posamentier I-IW, Summerhayes CE Haq BU,Allen GP, eds. 1993. Sequence Stratigraphyand Facies Associations. Int. Assoc. Sedimen-tol. Spec. Publ’ 18. 644 pp.

Posamentier HW, Vail PR. 1988. Eustatic con-trols on clastic deposition II--sequence andsystems tract models. See Wilgus et al 1988,pp. 125-54

Pratt BR, James NP, Cowan CA. 1992. Peritidalcarbonates. In Facies Models, ed. RG Walker,NP James, pp. 303-22. Toronto: Geol. Assoc.Can. 409 pp.

Prave AR. 1991. Depositional and sequencestratigraphie framework of the Lower Cam-brian Zabriskie Quartzite: implications forregional correlations and the Early Cambrianpaieogeography of the Death Valley region ofCalifornia and Nevada. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull.104:505-15

Reynolds DJ, Steckler MS, Coakley BJ. 1991.The role of the sediment load in sequencestratigraphy: the influence of flexurai isostasyand compaction. J. Geophys. Res. 96:6931-49

Ross WC. 1990. Modeling base-level dynamicsas a control on basin-fill geometries and fa-cies distribution: a conceptual framework. InQuantitative Dynamic Stratigraphy, ed. TACross, pp. 387-99. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall. 625 pp.

Ross WC, Halliwell BA, May JA, Watts DE,Syvitski JPM. 1994. Slope readjustment: anew model for the development of submarine


Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.



fans and aprons. Geology 22:511-14Salvador A. 1987. Unconformity-bounded stra-

tigraphie units. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull, 98:232-37

Sarg JF. 1988. Carbonate sequence stratigraphy.See Wilgus et al 1988, pp. 155-81

Sarg JF. 1989. Middle-late Permian depositionalsequences, Permian basin, west Texas andNew Mexico. In Atlas of Seismic Stratigra-phy, ed. AW Bally, pp. 140-54. Am. Assoc.Petrol. Geol. Stud. Geol. No. 27, Vol. 3.244PP.

Sarg JF, Lehmann PJ. 1986. Lower-MiddleGuadalupian facies and stratigraphy, San An-dres/Grayburg formations, Permian basin,Guadalupe Mountains, New Mexico andTexas. In Field Trip Guidebook, SanAndres/Grayburg Formations, GuadalupeMountains, New Mexico and Texas, ed. GEMoore, GL Wilde, pp. 1-35. Permian basinsection. Soc. Econ. Paleontol. Mineral. Publ.86-25. 144 pp.

Schlager W, Reijmer JJG, Droxler A. 1994.Highstand shedding of carbonate platforms.J. Sedimentol, Res. 64:270-81

Schlanger SO. 1986. High-frequency sea-levelfluctuations in Cretaceous time: an emerginggeophysical problem. In History of Mesozoicand Cenozo& Oceans, ed. KJ Hsii, pp. 61-74.Am. Geophys. Union Geodyn. Ser. 15

Shanley KW, McCabe PJ. 1994. Perspectiveson the sequence stratigraphy of continentalstrata. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull, 78:544-68

Sinclair HD, Coakley B J, Allen PA, Watts AB.1991. Simulation of foreland basin stratigra-phy using a diffusion model of mountain beltuplift and erosion: an example from the cen-tral Alps, Switzerland. Tectonics 10:599-620

Sloss LL. 1950. Paleozoic stratigraphy in theMontana area. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Bull.34:423-51

Sloss LL. 1963. Sequences in the eratonic inte-rior of North America. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull74:93-114

Sloss LL. 1988. Forty years of sequence stratig-raphy. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull, 100:1661-65

Sloss LL. 1991. The tectonic factor in sea levelchange: a countervailing view. J. Geophys.Res. 96:6609-617

Sloss LL, Krumbein WC, Dapples EC. 1949. In-tegrated facies analysis. In Sedimentary Fa-cies in Geologic History, ed. CR Longwell,pp. 91-124. Geol. Soc. Am. Mere. 39. 171 pp.

Sonnenfeld MD, Cross TA. 1993. Volumetricpartitioning and facies differentiation withinthe Permian Upper San Andres Formation ofLast Chance Canyon, Guadalupe Mountains,New Mexico. See Loucks & Sarg 1993, pp.435-74

Southgate PN, Kennard JM, Jackson MJ,O’Brien PE, Sexton MJ. 1993. Reciprocallowstand clastic and highstand carbonate sed-

imentation, subsurface Devonian reef com-plex, Canning basin, Western Australia. SeeLoucks & Sarg 1993, pp. 157-79

Steckler MS, Reynolds DJ, Coakley B J, SwiftBA, Jarrard R. 1993. Modelling passive mar-gin sequence stratigraphy. See Posamentier etal 1993, pp. 19-41

Steel R J, Maehle S, Nilsen H, Roe SL, Spin-nangr A. 1977. Coarsening-upward cyclesin the alluvium of Homelen basin (Devo-nian), Norway: sedimentary response to tec-tonic events. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 88:1124--34

Suter JR, Berryhill HL, Penland S. 1987. LateQuaternary sea-level fluctuations and depo-sitional sequences, southwest Louisiana con-tinental shelf. In Sea-Level Fluctuation andCoastal Evolution, ed. D Nummedal, OPilkey, J Howard, pp. 199-219. Soc. Econ.Paleontol. Mineral. Spec. Publ. No. 41. 267

PP.Swift DJP, Phillips S, Thorne JA. 1991. Sedi-

mentation on continental margins, V: parase-quenees. In Shelf Sand and Sandstone Bodies.Geometry, Facies and Sequence Stratigraphy,ed. DJP Swift, GF Oertel, RW Tillman, JAThome, pp. 153-87. Int. Assoc. Sedimentol.Spec. Publ. 14. 532 pp.

Sykes LR, Sbar ML. 1973. Intraplate earth-quakes, lithospheric stresses and the driv-ing mechanism of plate tectonics. Nature245:298-302

Tankard AJ, Welsink HJ, Jenkins WAM. 1989.Structural styles and stratigraphy of theJeanne d’Arc basin, Grand Banks of New-foundland. In Extensional Tectonics andStratigraphy of the North Atlantic Margins,ed. AJ Tankard, HR Balkwill, pp. 265-82.Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Mem. 46. 64l pp.

Tesson M, Allen GP, Ravenne C. 1993. LatePleistocene shelf-perched lowstand wedgeson the Rh6ne continental shelf. See Posamen-tier et al 1993, pp. 183-96

Tesson M, Gensous B, Allen GP, RavenneC. 1990. Late Quaternary deltaic lowstandwedges on the Rh6ne continental shelf,France. Mar. Geol. 91:325-32

Underhill JR. 1991. Controls on late Jurassicseismic sequences, Inner Moray Firth, UKNorth Sea: a critical test of a key segmentof Exxon’s original global cycle chart. BasinRes. 3:79-98

Vail PR. 1987. Seismic stratigraphy interpreta-tion using sequence stratigraphy. Part I: Seis-mic stratigraphy interpretation procedure. InAtlas of Seismic Stratigraphy, ed. AW Bally,pp. 1-10. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Stud.Geol. No. 27, Vol. 1. 125 pp.

Vail PR. 1992. The evolution of seismic stratig-raphy and the global sea-level curve. See Dott1992, pp. 83-91

Vail PR, Audemard E Bowman SA, Eis-ner PN, Perez-Cruz C. 1991. The strati-


Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


graphic signatures of tectonics, eustasy andsedimentology--an overview. In Cycles andEvents in Stratigraphy, ed. G Einsele, WRicken, A Seilacher, pp. 617-59. Berlin:Springer-Verlag. 955 pp.

Vail PR, Hardenbol J, Todd RG. 1984. Jurassicunconformities, chronostratigraphy, and sea-level changes from seismic stratigraphy andbiostratigraphy. In Interregional Unconfor-mities and Hydrocarbon Accumulation, ed.JS Schlee, pp. 129-44. Am. Assoc. Petrol.Geol. Mere. 36. 184 pp.

Vail PR, Mitchum RM Jr, Todd RG, WidmierJM, Thompson S III, et al. 1977. Seismicstratigraphy and global changes of sea level.See Payton 1977, pp. 49-212

Van Wagoner JC, Mitchum RM, Campion KM,Rahmanian VD. 1990. Siliciclastic SequenceStratigraphy in Well Logs, Cores, and Out-crop.v: Concepts for High-Resolution Corre-lation of gime and Facies. Am. Assoc. Petrol.Geol. Methods in Exploration Series, No. Z55 pp.

Van Wagoner JC, Nummedal D, Jones CR,Taylor DR, Jennette DC, Riley GW. 1991.Sequence stratigraphy applications to shelfsandstone reservoirs.Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol.FieM Conf.

Van Wagoner JC, Posamentier HW, MitchumRM Jr, Vail PR, Sarg JF, et al. 1988. Anoverview of the fundamentals of sequencestratigraphy and key definitions. See Wilguset al 1988, pp. 39-45

Walker RG. 1990. Facies modeling and se-quence ~tratigraphy. J. Sediment. Petrol.60:777-86

Walker RG, Plint AG. 1992. Wave- and storm-dominated shallow marine systems. In FaciesModels, ed. RG Walker, NP James, pp. 219-238. Toronto: Geol. Assoc. Can. 409 pp.

Watkins JS, Mountain GS, convenors. 1990.Role of ODP drilling in the investigationof global changes in sea level. Report ofJOI]USSAC Workshop

Weimer RJ. 1984. Relation of unconformities,tectonics, and sea-level changes, Cretaceous

of Western Interior, USA. In lnterregionalUnconforraities and Hydrocarbon Accumu-lation, ed. JS Schlee, pp. 7-35. Am. Assoc.Petrol. Geol. Mere. 36. 184 pp.

Weimer P. 1989. Sequence stratigraphy of theMississippi Fan (Plio-Pleistocene), Gulf Mexico. Geol. Mar. Lett. 9:185-272

Weiraer P, Posamantier HW, eds. 1993. Silici-clastic Sequence Straligraphy: Recent Devel-opments and Applications. Am. Assoc. Petrol.Geol. Mere. 58. 492 pp.

Weissel JK, Karner GD. 1989. Flexural upliftof rift flanks due to mechanical unloading ofthe lithosphere during extension. J. Geophys.Res. 94:13,919-50

Wemicke B, Axen GJ. 1988. On the role ofisoStasy in the evolution of normal fault sys-tems. Geology 16:848-51

Wheeler HE. 1958. Time-stratigraphy. Am. As-soc. Petrol. Geol. Bull. 42:1047-63

Wilgus CK, Hastings BS, Kendall CGStC, Posa-mentier HW, Ross CA, Van Wagoner JC, eds.1988. Sea-Level Changes: An Integrated Ap-proach. Soc. Econ. Paleontol. Mineral. Spec.Publ. No. 42. 407 pp.

Winter H de la R, Brink MC. 1991. Chrono-stratigraphic subdivision of the Witwater-srand basin based on a Western Transvaalcomposite column. S. Afr. J. Geol. 94:191-203

Wood LJ, Ethridge FG, Schumm SA. 1993.The effects of rate of base-level fluctuationon coastal plain, shelf and slope deposi-tional systems: an experimental approach.See Posamentier et al 1993, pp. 43-53

Yang C-S, Nio S-D. 1993. Application of high-resolution sequence stratigraphy to the upperRotliegand in the Netherlands offshore. SeeWeimer & Posamentier 1993, pp. 285-316

Yingling VL, Heller PL. 1992. Timing andrecord of foreland sedimentation during theinitiation of the Sevier orogenic belt in cen-tral Utah. Basin Res. 4:279-90

Zoback ML, Zoback MD, Adams J, AssumpcaoM, Bergrnan S, et al. 1989. Global patterns oftectonic stress. Nature 341:291-98


Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Ann

u. R

ev. E

arth

. Pla

net.

Sci.

1995

.23:

451-

478.

Dow

nloa

ded

from

arj

ourn

als.

annu

alre

view

s.or

gby

Col

umbi

a U

nive

rsity

on

09/1

7/05

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Documents

Sequence Stratigraphyncb/Selected_Articles_all_files/08... · and the emergence of sequence stratigraphy does not imply that existing tech- ... stratigraphy represents more than a